[Crisp] Re: Last Call Comments on XPC
Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz@denic.de> Thu, 24 August 2006 09:41 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGBiW-0001je-3E; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:41:40 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGBiV-0001j2-Eh for crisp@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:41:39 -0400
Received: from smtp.denic.de ([81.91.161.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GGBiS-0006x1-4W for crisp@ietf.org; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 05:41:39 -0400
Received: from notes.rz.denic.de ([192.168.0.77]) by smtp.denic.de with esmtp id 1GGBiG-0000Cw-SR; Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:41:24 +0200
In-Reply-To: <tslk64zju8t.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005
From: Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz@denic.de>
Message-ID: <OF9CDAAF1B.D1563283-ONC12571D4.003411FA-C12571D4.00353813@notes.denic.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 11:41:17 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes/Denic at 24.08.2006 11:41:24, Serialize complete at 24.08.2006 11:41:24
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Cc: crisp@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: [Crisp] Re: Last Call Comments on XPC
X-BeenThere: crisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Cross Registry Information Service Protocol <crisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:crisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp>, <mailto:crisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: crisp-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Sam, > First, you don't specify enough about SASL for an interoperable > implementation. PLease see the application protocol requirements in > RFC 4222 for what you need to specify. My preference is that you > reference RFC 4222 not 2222. Ok, first of all I am not the author of the draft, it's Andy. But anyway I'll take a look at 4422 (it's pretty new) and review XPC with that new light. > The SASL tokens can be rather large--several kb in some common > situations. So I'm not sure that the requirement they fit in a single > chunk is reasonable. We have up to 64 Kb for a single SASL token (minus 4 bytes up to minus 23 bytes, depending on the mechanism name length). Do you think that's a real problem? Best regards, Marcos _______________________________________________ Crisp mailing list Crisp@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp
- [Crisp] Re: Last Call Comments on XPC Marcos Sanz/Denic
- Re: [Crisp] Re: Last Call Comments on XPC Andrew Newton
- Re: [Crisp] Re: Last Call Comments on XPC Andrew Newton